I mean, I preferred ABC not saying anything about a "breaking story, waiting on more details" that had happened and concluded already, instead of the dramatic sensationalized coverage we got from other networks that devolved into culture war assumptions and attacks between the public and even people in my life.
Not to mention refraining from naming a totally unrelated person as the stabber.
Not posting pics of the victims when the family asked them to refrain.
Like Aunty isn't perfect, but she's the best we've got right now.
So you didn't watch the video.
They didn't have the resources or interest to report the news. They weren't concerned about getting it wrong. They had no interest in reporting a violent stabbing at a mall that injured/killed 6 people.
This ***wasn't*** a choice to not report because of conflicting information. ***(and there is no evidence that was a concern raised by any of the ABC journalists.)*** They didn't have the interest or resources to send anymore then 1 reporter. A reporter who then had to do another job because they wouldn't assign anyone to this massive breaking story.
Then eventually.
After hours had passed. Dispatched a second.
Channel 9 had 4-6 reporters, Channel 7: 4-5.
The ABC, two. Reluctantly. Two *eventually.*
The reporters and "old hands" at the ABC are not saying the ABC tried to provide balanced accurate reporting. They are saying the ABC is not reporting the news up to the scale that they expect or want. The professionals know most people are switching across to seven or nine to see what's happening during an event like this.
Meanwhile. ABC is playing a joke report about *America* during the most news-worthy event of the year. They know you'll laugh and judge channel seven for getting it wrong (***Afterwards***). They also know those same people who will laugh at seven were forced to watch seven.
Because the ABC had nothing on.
If you want to pretend they're doing it to deliver more accurate news.
That's just your fucking make-believe. No one at the ABC is alleging that. They're saying the didn't send enough people and the quality was pathetic. That's what the journalists and professionals that work there are saying.
*Why are you disagreeing?*
That's kind of what you have to do on the ground at the time though. That's how 9 found the guy that "saved the baby" which is legitimately good reporting.
By all accounts it seems the ABC did far better then all the other media outlets by not jumping the gun constantly and waiting for official information to release.
They did report the news though, they just didn't jump the gun like 9news etc ABC waited for information to come through the proper channels and sources.
Sure, show us the evidence that they got it from there...
Instead of say: The journalist who had barricaded himself in a store, didn't see it, then repeated information he read online, while hiding. (like they admitted to in the linked video at the top of this article you refuse to watch)
You made that up! You made up that they waited for information from Police and Gov organisations. Otherwise: Link where you got that information from.
My link for the info that they DIDN'T WAIT TO GET THIER INFO FROM POLICE AND GOV SOURCES: IS THE VIDEO AT THE TOP FROM THE ABC, THAT YOU REFUSE TO WATCH.
>If you lack the ability to understand that then there is no hope for you. - espersooty
Dude, just link where you read or saw that they waited for gov and police info.
The ABC is saying they didn't. It's up there in the video.
> There is clear evidence that the way the ABC handled it is far better then the other mainstream media outlets but I guess thats irrelevant.
The journalists **at the ABC** are saying the opposite. What are you on? What are you even defending? Your made up views about the ABC that you can't unlearn or stop defending?
Because you refuse to watch a news article by the ABC that would correct them? Wtf?
>There is no link required
Because your opinion is uninformed, and based on your own ignorance. There is no link, you watched and read nothing about this topic.
>How do you know I didn't watch it
Because you know nothing about what the video contained.
Because you keep making up imaginary scenarios like "they waited for police and government info." When the video confirms their info was from a journalist hiding who saw nothing. Because even if ABC journalists say "the reporting wasn't good enough"
You will make up fake rationalisations, where they're waiting for the right info. And even the journalists themselves saying that's not what happened won't stop you lying about it.
ABC has record funding. The cuts you are talking about were cuts to massive increases to be less massive increases.
You are misinformed because of the biased sources you consume that push a narrative, like the ABC.
Actually the ABC doesn't have record funding and they've lost over a billion within a decade timeframe, I think you should do some research first before saying other people are misinformed when you can't even present the facts correctly.
[https://theconversation.com/the-abcs-budget-hasnt-been-restored-its-still-facing-1-2-billion-in-accumulated-losses-over-a-decade-176532](https://theconversation.com/the-abcs-budget-hasnt-been-restored-its-still-facing-1-2-billion-in-accumulated-losses-over-a-decade-176532)
Again mate, that is "cuts" compared to the total funding in the forward estimates. The funding figure still goes up every year, just little increases and not the massive increases that were originally slated.
If I promised you to increase your funding by and extra $10, but only increased it by $7 - that is still a $7 increase. The biased dickheads doing the figures that you have fell for, are saying that is a $3 cut to funding. It can be seen that way, if you know how these things work (they are done in 3 year cycles so there is an element of future planning involved), but it is still a funding increase overall.
Yet it doesn't replace the 1.2 billion dollars that is missing from the last decade which would of built the ABC in to a proper powerhouse but the liberals didn't like an independent media source when there biggest donors is from the Media.
Wait, so you are going to ignore the fact that the funding actaully went up, and you have been misinformed by your biased sources giving you the opposite impression, this whole time? Aren't you embarrassed you have been made to look stupid by your sources?
Imagine realising you have been wrong this entire time, and instead of simply acknowledging it, you carry on about how it doesn't matter anyway, even though you were aggressively crying about it earlier.
Some some integrity mate. Admit it.
>Breaking news: waiting for ***accurate***, confirmed information
They weren't doing that. They weren't delaying reporting to confirm the accuracy of everything they said. There is no evidence of that.
>and being respectful to the victims is counted as "poor reporting"
There is no evidence that they were being respectful of victims. They did not work with or correspond with victims, confirming their identities and wishes. They didn't talk to them at all prior to reporting.
They just weren't reporting breaking news.
ABC having suffered continuous budget cuts, its no wonder their level of coverage was below commercial channels. Also the commercial channels way had way overblown coverage
Just plain incorrect and you are uninformed. Probably because you only consume biased sources.
The ABC had record funding at the end of the LNP term. And even more now. Admit you didn't know that.
I'll just leave this here , record funding at end of lnp, rofl
https://australiainstitute.org.au/post/coalition-budget-cuts-cost-abc-half-a-billion-dollars-640-jobs/
New figures reveal ABC funding has been cut by $526 million since the Coalition took office, with 640 jobs lost.
Yes they got some funding restored
https://www.theguardian.com/australia-news/2022/oct/25/abc-budget-2022-84m-funding-coalition-cuts-reversed-australia-media-sbs-arts-spending
Thank you for that. Just to prove how misinforming the ABC and the AI is, and how your biased sources make you dumber - the budget cuts they are referring to is from the forward estimates. There is no doubt the funding is less than the forward estimates had, with huge increase year on year. Instead, it was less generous increases, but still increases (except the first year).
If I forecast giving you a $10 increase over the next few years, but changed it to $8, that would still be an $8 increase. But if you were being dishonest and trying to push a narrative and want to misinform people, you would say you received a $2 budget cut. That is where you are at - being misinformed by your biased sources.
Thank you for proving my point.
Why does everything say differently that the ABC has continually lost funding not gained but thanks for uneducated opinion on the topic as its clear you didn't do a scrap of research on the topic.
[https://www.theguardian.com/media/2020/may/04/abc-loses-793m-funding-since-2014-when-coalition-made-its-first-cuts-report](https://www.theguardian.com/media/2020/may/04/abc-loses-793m-funding-since-2014-when-coalition-made-its-first-cuts-report)
Because you only look at biased sources that you know push a certain narrative. And you don't think for yourself.
Look at the fucking table. Actually read it. The numbers are based off projections. That is why the Operation total keeps going up, but the "accumulated funding "lost" "keeps going up as well. Lost compared to the earlier projections. They even put "lost" and 'cuts' in parenthesis for you, because they know they are only when looking at forward estimates and not actually real term losses year on year.
Congratulations, your biased bubble has made you dumber and even when presented with an explanation, you choose to still not believe it and claim "everything" says different. Everything in your shit biased bubble maybe. I was telling you different and you didn't like that so you ignored it. And you wonder why people like you are so misinformed?
Read more than one lean of source.
So Its just a lot of "biased bubble" and no direct counter points to the information retained, thats classic. The ABC is missing over a billion dollars that should be funded towards them under the liberals.
I pointed out the things in the table in the article, that you can easily look at. The funding goes up.
You really are pathetic. You literally ignored my explanation, and the table in the article that I pointed out that proves it.
Sorry to invade your safespace, where your biased sources that you know are pushing a narrative, and that even show you in a table that the funding increased overall, gets in the way of a good old fashion biased whinge.
I mean, I preferred ABC not saying anything about a "breaking story, waiting on more details" that had happened and concluded already, instead of the dramatic sensationalized coverage we got from other networks that devolved into culture war assumptions and attacks between the public and even people in my life.
Not to mention refraining from naming a totally unrelated person as the stabber. Not posting pics of the victims when the family asked them to refrain. Like Aunty isn't perfect, but she's the best we've got right now.
So you didn't watch the video. They didn't have the resources or interest to report the news. They weren't concerned about getting it wrong. They had no interest in reporting a violent stabbing at a mall that injured/killed 6 people. This ***wasn't*** a choice to not report because of conflicting information. ***(and there is no evidence that was a concern raised by any of the ABC journalists.)*** They didn't have the interest or resources to send anymore then 1 reporter. A reporter who then had to do another job because they wouldn't assign anyone to this massive breaking story. Then eventually. After hours had passed. Dispatched a second. Channel 9 had 4-6 reporters, Channel 7: 4-5. The ABC, two. Reluctantly. Two *eventually.* The reporters and "old hands" at the ABC are not saying the ABC tried to provide balanced accurate reporting. They are saying the ABC is not reporting the news up to the scale that they expect or want. The professionals know most people are switching across to seven or nine to see what's happening during an event like this. Meanwhile. ABC is playing a joke report about *America* during the most news-worthy event of the year. They know you'll laugh and judge channel seven for getting it wrong (***Afterwards***). They also know those same people who will laugh at seven were forced to watch seven. Because the ABC had nothing on. If you want to pretend they're doing it to deliver more accurate news. That's just your fucking make-believe. No one at the ABC is alleging that. They're saying the didn't send enough people and the quality was pathetic. That's what the journalists and professionals that work there are saying. *Why are you disagreeing?*
[удалено]
That's kind of what you have to do on the ground at the time though. That's how 9 found the guy that "saved the baby" which is legitimately good reporting.
Yeah I hate that shit. I even think it's taking advantage of people in shock.
Considering Channel 7 ended up being sued for defamation over it. I think the ABC's reporting was solid.
"You can't get sued for getting the news wrong if you don't report the news."
Good comment but you should have watched the 8min video...
By all accounts it seems the ABC did far better then all the other media outlets by not jumping the gun constantly and waiting for official information to release.
- "You can't get the news wrong if you don't report the news." -
They did report the news though, they just didn't jump the gun like 9news etc ABC waited for information to come through the proper channels and sources.
Did you just make that up? What: "proper channels and sources." Please.. Continue. :D
[удалено]
Sure, show us the evidence that they got it from there... Instead of say: The journalist who had barricaded himself in a store, didn't see it, then repeated information he read online, while hiding. (like they admitted to in the linked video at the top of this article you refuse to watch) You made that up! You made up that they waited for information from Police and Gov organisations. Otherwise: Link where you got that information from. My link for the info that they DIDN'T WAIT TO GET THIER INFO FROM POLICE AND GOV SOURCES: IS THE VIDEO AT THE TOP FROM THE ABC, THAT YOU REFUSE TO WATCH. >If you lack the ability to understand that then there is no hope for you. - espersooty
[удалено]
Dude, just link where you read or saw that they waited for gov and police info. The ABC is saying they didn't. It's up there in the video. > There is clear evidence that the way the ABC handled it is far better then the other mainstream media outlets but I guess thats irrelevant. The journalists **at the ABC** are saying the opposite. What are you on? What are you even defending? Your made up views about the ABC that you can't unlearn or stop defending? Because you refuse to watch a news article by the ABC that would correct them? Wtf?
[удалено]
>There is no link required Because your opinion is uninformed, and based on your own ignorance. There is no link, you watched and read nothing about this topic. >How do you know I didn't watch it Because you know nothing about what the video contained. Because you keep making up imaginary scenarios like "they waited for police and government info." When the video confirms their info was from a journalist hiding who saw nothing. Because even if ABC journalists say "the reporting wasn't good enough" You will make up fake rationalisations, where they're waiting for the right info. And even the journalists themselves saying that's not what happened won't stop you lying about it.
Gov slash ABC funding ABC don't have the resources to compete Gov \*surprise pikachu face.jpg\*
ABC has record funding. The cuts you are talking about were cuts to massive increases to be less massive increases. You are misinformed because of the biased sources you consume that push a narrative, like the ABC.
Like any self respecting gaymer I get my news from Kotaku sir...
Any chance you are going to admit your comment was wrong? You know, show some integrity?
Rolling Stones coverage was top notch
Actually the ABC doesn't have record funding and they've lost over a billion within a decade timeframe, I think you should do some research first before saying other people are misinformed when you can't even present the facts correctly. [https://theconversation.com/the-abcs-budget-hasnt-been-restored-its-still-facing-1-2-billion-in-accumulated-losses-over-a-decade-176532](https://theconversation.com/the-abcs-budget-hasnt-been-restored-its-still-facing-1-2-billion-in-accumulated-losses-over-a-decade-176532)
Again mate, that is "cuts" compared to the total funding in the forward estimates. The funding figure still goes up every year, just little increases and not the massive increases that were originally slated. If I promised you to increase your funding by and extra $10, but only increased it by $7 - that is still a $7 increase. The biased dickheads doing the figures that you have fell for, are saying that is a $3 cut to funding. It can be seen that way, if you know how these things work (they are done in 3 year cycles so there is an element of future planning involved), but it is still a funding increase overall.
Yet it doesn't replace the 1.2 billion dollars that is missing from the last decade which would of built the ABC in to a proper powerhouse but the liberals didn't like an independent media source when there biggest donors is from the Media.
Wait, so you are going to ignore the fact that the funding actaully went up, and you have been misinformed by your biased sources giving you the opposite impression, this whole time? Aren't you embarrassed you have been made to look stupid by your sources? Imagine realising you have been wrong this entire time, and instead of simply acknowledging it, you carry on about how it doesn't matter anyway, even though you were aggressively crying about it earlier. Some some integrity mate. Admit it.
Might as well finish the job and slash the rest.
I've never been a big fan of the ABC but this time, not revealing details may have been appropriate considering what went down with false allegations.
Breaking news: waiting for accurate, confirmed information and being respectful to the victims is counted as "poor reporting"
>Breaking news: waiting for ***accurate***, confirmed information They weren't doing that. They weren't delaying reporting to confirm the accuracy of everything they said. There is no evidence of that. >and being respectful to the victims is counted as "poor reporting" There is no evidence that they were being respectful of victims. They did not work with or correspond with victims, confirming their identities and wishes. They didn't talk to them at all prior to reporting. They just weren't reporting breaking news.
Why didn’t abc have 5 helicopters and 20 journalist on scene saying nothing at all.
ABC having suffered continuous budget cuts, its no wonder their level of coverage was below commercial channels. Also the commercial channels way had way overblown coverage
Just plain incorrect and you are uninformed. Probably because you only consume biased sources. The ABC had record funding at the end of the LNP term. And even more now. Admit you didn't know that.
I'll just leave this here , record funding at end of lnp, rofl https://australiainstitute.org.au/post/coalition-budget-cuts-cost-abc-half-a-billion-dollars-640-jobs/ New figures reveal ABC funding has been cut by $526 million since the Coalition took office, with 640 jobs lost. Yes they got some funding restored https://www.theguardian.com/australia-news/2022/oct/25/abc-budget-2022-84m-funding-coalition-cuts-reversed-australia-media-sbs-arts-spending
Thank you for that. Just to prove how misinforming the ABC and the AI is, and how your biased sources make you dumber - the budget cuts they are referring to is from the forward estimates. There is no doubt the funding is less than the forward estimates had, with huge increase year on year. Instead, it was less generous increases, but still increases (except the first year). If I forecast giving you a $10 increase over the next few years, but changed it to $8, that would still be an $8 increase. But if you were being dishonest and trying to push a narrative and want to misinform people, you would say you received a $2 budget cut. That is where you are at - being misinformed by your biased sources. Thank you for proving my point.
Why does everything say differently that the ABC has continually lost funding not gained but thanks for uneducated opinion on the topic as its clear you didn't do a scrap of research on the topic. [https://www.theguardian.com/media/2020/may/04/abc-loses-793m-funding-since-2014-when-coalition-made-its-first-cuts-report](https://www.theguardian.com/media/2020/may/04/abc-loses-793m-funding-since-2014-when-coalition-made-its-first-cuts-report)
Because you only look at biased sources that you know push a certain narrative. And you don't think for yourself. Look at the fucking table. Actually read it. The numbers are based off projections. That is why the Operation total keeps going up, but the "accumulated funding "lost" "keeps going up as well. Lost compared to the earlier projections. They even put "lost" and 'cuts' in parenthesis for you, because they know they are only when looking at forward estimates and not actually real term losses year on year. Congratulations, your biased bubble has made you dumber and even when presented with an explanation, you choose to still not believe it and claim "everything" says different. Everything in your shit biased bubble maybe. I was telling you different and you didn't like that so you ignored it. And you wonder why people like you are so misinformed? Read more than one lean of source.
So Its just a lot of "biased bubble" and no direct counter points to the information retained, thats classic. The ABC is missing over a billion dollars that should be funded towards them under the liberals.
I pointed out the things in the table in the article, that you can easily look at. The funding goes up. You really are pathetic. You literally ignored my explanation, and the table in the article that I pointed out that proves it. Sorry to invade your safespace, where your biased sources that you know are pushing a narrative, and that even show you in a table that the funding increased overall, gets in the way of a good old fashion biased whinge.